Talk:Audrey Parker
Former Identities Should we add in the opening paragraph she used to be known as Lucy Ripley & Sarah? --Revan's Exile 03:50, October 1, 2011 (UTC) Thats a good idea. Go for it.Mr.Comatose 14:24, October 1, 2011 (UTC) Merge I like to suggest we merge the Lucy Ripley article as is with the Blonde Audrey article since they are physically the same person. I also like to suggest we do same thing with the two Lucy Ripley's that we did with the two Audrey's but have one of the Lucy Ripley's be a redirect to the Blonde Audrey. --Revan's Exile 15:37, October 1, 2011 (UTC) True, or we could add the information from Lucy Ripely into Audrey page, and change that page for the original one. Does that make sense? Cause there is still a Lucy Ripely out there, so can can't just get rid of it. If you do want to redirect it, then create a page and call it Lucy Ripely (Original). This is what I think we should do. Your contributions are appreciated. Mr.Comatose 16:14, October 1, 2011 (UTC) I already said we should merge the current Lucy Ripley article with the Blonde Audrey article. At the least we should have a disambiguation article (or whatever it is called) that links to the real Lucy and this one. --Revan's Exile 17:21, October 1, 2011 (UTC) article name I really dislike disambiguating these characters with hair color. Can't we have the entity at the main page (Audrey Parker), and put a hatnote on top linking to "Audrey Parker (real)" or "Audrey Parker (original)"? They have the exact same name so any wording we use will be clumsy but the hair wording really bugs me. That seems to suggest that the main thing differentiating them is hair color, when that's just one tiny detail. Also, it's a little confusing. We've seen Audrey Parker with brown hair (Lucy) and with red hair (Sarah), and so it's easy to think that that's where you're going. Honestly, it was what I thought at first. At some point we'll probably have a better idea of who or what Audrey is, and we'll have some better name to use, but right now we have to use the name that she knows. Besides, even when we find that out, keeping separate pages will probably make sense, as she has different memories every time and they don't exactly carry over. SingingEarth (talk) 19:00, September 11, 2013 (UTC) ~ I see your point there. I think we do have a page for that if you search Audrey Parker. As for the naming conventions, I get what your saying. So how about this, for the main character version of Audrey, we can rename it Audrey Parker (Main) referring to the fact that she is the main character. The other Audrey can be Audrey Parker (Original), since she is the original one whose memories were taken. This is what I suggest. Mr.Comatose (talk) 14:24, September 13, 2013 (UTC) :Yeah, that works well. And yes, I saw the disambiguation page but I question the necessity of that. There are only two pages with the name and it's obvious that one is more important then the other. Is there any real reason that we need a disambiguation page and can't simply settle this matter with tophats? SingingEarth (talk) 10:52, September 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Well it's more like for navigation than importance. There are some people who aren't savy with wikias and need that extra page to help them. In addition some people might not know the difference between the two. So those who know about this page, you can just by pass it. It is really doing no harm other than linking to Audrey Parker itself. You just have to remember to link it to this page. Mr.Comatose (talk) 13:29, September 15, 2013 (UTC) :::Well, that's the problem. I run into links all the time that go to the disambig page instead of a specific Audrey. The entity Audrey Parker has been and will be the main Audrey Parker and her article is much more likely what people are going to be looking for. We can add hatnotes to both Audrey's articles so that if someone ends up in the wrong place they get quickly redirected. See the Sarah article for an example. I added a hatnote to the Sarah Vernon article in case people simply typed in Sarah, looking for her. This takes care of that confusion. And I don't see the need for a disambiguation page. There's never any point on the wiki where we aren't linking to a specific Audrey. The disambiguation page just means that a lot of links don't go to the right place. SingingEarth (talk) 17:23, September 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::I see your point. That is true we do run into this issue when linking pages. I guess for the Audrey page we can just add the hatnote to it and make it link to this page. We can just name this page, Audrey Parker and the other one Audrey Parker (original). I have a feeling though that when we discover who Audrey really is, we might be changing the name of the page since this page is reserved for the main character. Although I wasn't the one who created the naming conventions and the disaguation pages, so I suggest that you message Tonyfuchs1019 (the other admin) about it. I do see your point though and its a good one. Mr.Comatose (talk) 20:21, September 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::Yeah well when we find out who Audrey really is we're likely to have loads of other problems. If she ends up remembering all of her own lives? Man, ideally we'd have one page for that but that's insane, having that many lives, personalities and sets of memories all on one character page. Yeah, I'll poke Tony and see if I can drag them into this conversation. As I've been editing I've begun to notice that it isn't just a problem here, it's a problem for the Lucy pages and the Agent Howard pages as well (which are embarrassingly labelled "African-american" and "Caucasian"). :::::Is there any particular reason you favour "Original" over "Real"? Real isn't the best word, I know, but the problem with original is that it's used both ways in fan groups. It's used to discuss that character that we originally got to know as Audrey and it's used to discuss the character from whom the memories originated. If "Real" is too icky, why not use the naming convention Duke created "Audrey 2". It's unambiguous, can easily be applied to other pages with this issue and it's a naming convention used in cannon. SingingEarth (talk) 22:15, September 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::~ :::::The thing is with calling the other audrey Audrey 2, it sounds very messy and informal. As for the real and original thing, I'm not sure how else to say that the burnette Audrey is the first Audrey despite being the second one we have seen. She is the original Audrey. This is why I suggested it. As for the African-American thing, that was before my time here but I never really fixed it. Although I have a feeling that we're going to find out the identity of the fake Agent Howard soon right? Mr.Comatose (talk) 00:07, September 17, 2013 (UTC) I get where you're coming from but I think that the masses have already spoken. It's just not a terminology anyone uses. I checked around the wiki to see how this was handled when I was writing The Barn article and every article I saw referred to her as "the real Audrey Parker". It's what reviewers use, it's what this wiki uses, it's what fans use on message boards. Overwhelmingly, this is the terminology people use. It's a little inaccurate (Haven's Audrey is real too), but it's clear what it means. I understand why you like original but it's confusing as hell. Whatever word choice we use we'll be using for multiple article names (audrey, lucy, agent howard) and in the articles as well. So if we're going to go with original we need clear consensus and we then need to make an announcement and change the language in a lot of articles. Is there any reason not to go with the "real" wording? Is it problematic in some way that I'm missing or is it just not your preferred usage? Because it's a lot of work to change that and to make it clear. "Real" is already what we're using on the wiki and so it seems to make a lot of sense to go with what we're already doing, unless there's some reason not to. If you already made it clear and I'm missing it somehow, I'm sorry. If you can explain or re-explain why you don't like the wording "real" I'd really appreciate it. SingingEarth (talk) 07:36, September 20, 2013 (UTC) : Very well, I see your point. So your suggesting that we just label this page Audrey Parker correct? As for the other Audrey, name it something like Audrey Parker (Audrey 2)? I don't know what you have in mind, but feel free to get rid of the disambiguation page this one instance. As for the real thing, it was more of applying to the fact that the other Audrey was born Audrey and the other just assumed her identity. It it is troubling for the fandom, then we won't do it here. Thanks. Mr.Comatose (talk) 14:30, September 20, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think Audrey Parker, Lucy Ripley and Agent Howard should all be in the main namespace. And then either Audrey Parker 2 or Audrey Parker (real). I think "2" works a little better in the article text. Otherwise you're constantly saying "the real Audrey". "Audrey 2" is much more concise and works well in an article format that uses last names ("Parker 2"). If you think it's awkward in the title we could use "Audrey Parker (real)" as the title and then after the initial introduction use Audrey 2 in the text. Really, just going for the less awkward title, and I'm not sure which it is. Which do you find less awkward? Audrey/Howard/Lucy 2? or Audrey/Howard/Lucy (real)? ::Also, I've been waiting on moving this article for a few reasons. 1: we should have names settled on first. 2: It might help to have the bot running first, though we could certainly live with the redirects for a few days. Actually, yeah, we don't have to wait for the bot. 3: Moving a page over an existing page requires admin powers, which I don't have. And I'm not currently an admit. I have experience in this type of page move and could try and walk an admin through it if you aren't sure how to do it, but I can't do it myself without admin privs. SingingEarth (talk) 16:24, September 20, 2013 (UTC) :::Audrey 2 would defiantly work in the text. As for the title Audrey Parker (Real) would do fine. Using real for the copied counter parts would work fine. As for the redirects, you could always delete them and then rename the pages you want the links to go to. Example, delete the disambiguation page of Audrey Parker and then rename the Audrey Parker (blonde) to Audrey. If that is too much, then I'll see what I can do from the admin side. Mr.Comatose (talk) 18:11, September 20, 2013 (UTC) :::So we're talking about moving :::*Audrey Parker (blonde) to Audrey Parker OVER the disambiguation page currently there :::*Audrey Parker (brunette) to Audrey Parker (real) :::*Lucy Ripley (long hair) to Lucy Ripley OVER the disambiguation page currently there :::*Lucy Ripley (short hair) to Lucy Ripley (real) :::*Agent Howard (African-American) to Agent Howard OVER the disambiguation page currently there :::*Agent Howard (Caucasian) to Agent Howard (real) :::and changing the links, but only for the (real) pages. Right now we have three types of article links (one for each + disambiguation) but while we're going to update the individual page links, we're going to leave the disambiguation ones as they are because they're almost all intending to be pointers to the main character and we're getting rid of the disambiguation pages. :::Deleting is not only a bad idea for maintenance records, but it's also something that can't be done without admin powers. What you want to do is move the colour page to the main page OVER the existing disambiguation page. It's a little confusing, I know. And yes, we should get rid of redirects but can't do that until all links are changed, and I'll have to get the bot working on that. SingingEarth (talk) 21:13, September 20, 2013 (UTC) birthday The article lists Audrey Parker's birthday as being in December. Which makes no sense with the eight month timeline that the wiki currently has. Explanation? SingingEarth (talk) 10:53, September 15, 2013 (UTC) : I think that birthday is for the original Audrey Parker, since this character was so many different people. So really, it's not really her birthday. Thats the best explanation I have. Mr.Comatose (talk) 13:31, September 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Well yes, I assumed that it was the "real" Audrey Parker's birthday. Nevertheless, when she celebrates her birthday with everyone, she has no idea that she's not really Audrey Parker. I don't know where this information comes from, but if it's accurate that presents a huge problem to the 2010 Timeline because according to the current timeline, Audrey is only in Haven about 8 months, and the timeline places her birthday somewhere in July or August IIRC. SingingEarth (talk) 17:19, September 16, 2013 (UTC) :::I see your point. Ok, then feel free to remove it. It is really hard to keep track of birthdays for characters anyways. Thanks for bringing that point up. Mr.Comatose (talk) 20:16, September 16, 2013 (UTC) sources please! If someone does have a source for Audrey Parker's birthday being in December of 1981, please add it back and reference the source! If you can find any sourcing for information that isn't referenced, please, add add the references to the articles. I hate having to remove information and writing that people have spent time working on but if I can't find where it came from I don't have much of a choice. SingingEarth (talk) 22:20, September 16, 2013 (UTC) planning for a single page for AudSarLuLex It's becoming obvious that at some point in the future we're going to need to consolidate some of these separate pages for AudSarLuLex and create one sort of master page. As soon as Lexi remembers a previous incarnation, our method for dealing with this character will be broken. Here's my suggestion: Unless when Lexi remembers her previous lives she loses all of Lexi Dewitt's memories we're still going to have four distinct characters with their own sets of memories, their own personalities and experiences. So I think we should keep the individual pages for Sarah, Lucy, Audrey and Lexi. I think we should also create a combined page. Hopefully the show will provide some sort of name for us. The joint page would briefly cover AudSarLuLex's individual lives. Briefly. So anything that happens that is meaningful to all of her incarnations and not just one. So it would cover Sarah's child, Lucy's relationship with the CK, Lucy's discovery of the origin and solution to the Troubles, Lucy's refusal to enter the barn (causing later problems for Audrey), Audrey's relationship with Nathan and Duke, that sort of stuff. But it would cover these things briefly and explain what's unique about them or how they affected her in a later life. Or if there's something wildly different in her personality or abilities, it would be mentioned there. Maybe there could be a paragraph about how her personality changes from time to time. But the whole point would be to have things on that page that transcend a single life, and to have things for comparison on that page. But the details of Sarah's life would remain on her page, along with descriptions of her personality and her life and memories as "Sarah". Same for Lucy, same for Audrey, same for Lexi and anyone else who shows up. Whadda ya think? This let's us continue to work on the individual character pages and have pages to reference when we want to see what that character knew and experienced in their lifetime, but that also gives us a way to adapt when things inevitably change. This also gives us time, so that we don't have to immediately create a combined article, but can wait until the season fully plays out. This is really important because there are a lot of unreliable narrators in Haven and we can't always trust the first information that we get. Thoughts? SingingEarth (talk) 22:31, September 16, 2013 (UTC) : Idea, we could always combine everything, but seperate it with tabs. This is a good idea though. The Audrey page already kinda does this already. Mr.Comatose (talk) 00:04, September 17, 2013 (UTC) ::Is there any reason we shouldn't create a stub for this now? We already have to refer to the entity in some articles, like the Barn or the Meteor storm, anything really that affects multiple versions. Should we create a small article now called "the mysterious woman" and state the little we know about her and then link to the various versions? Eventually we'll get a name or more specifics, and flesh it out, but in the meantime, this might be a good place to start. SingingEarth (talk) 07:51, September 20, 2013 (UTC) :::I don't know. Right now I feel like we should wait for season 4 to go by a bit before acting, that way we have more information. Also I feel like we should open this open to others than us just making the decisions. As for the Audrey Parker page, I'm guessing that page we leave alone since she is done with that phase, right? I swear Haven is one of the few shows where we have to debate how to create pages for all her alter egos. Mr.Comatose (talk) 14:35, September 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::Well, she's done with it at the moment, but that could all change. Yeah, I'd like to see where the writer's take this, but it's already beginning to require some serious circumlocution. See The Barn for examples of this. I tried to write about the entity without giving it an exact name, and it was not easy to do. Not at all! SingingEarth (talk) 16:29, September 20, 2013 (UTC) :::::Thank you for that. Let's see what the writers do with her character. Mr.Comatose (talk) 18:05, September 20, 2013 (UTC)